3 ms·

I think that's always been my problem with Go, it feels like it makes a set of trade-offs that really benefit nobody. It isn't low level enough to really unseat

by orclev 10y ago

I think that's always been my problem with Go, it feels like it makes a set of trade-offs that really benefit nobody. It isn't low level enough to really unseat C (Rust stands a much better chance there), but it isn't high level enough to replace something like Haskell, Java, C#, or Python. Its type system doesn't seem too terrible until you run into the strange hole left by lacking generics, which considering that basically EVERYONE these days supports generics or a similar mechanism is a very strange stance to take. TL;DR: Go is a language designed for nobody, no matter what niche you try to fit it into it's missing some feature that's desirable in that space.

mixedCase 10y ago
> it feels like it makes a set of trade-offs that really benefit nobody You. I'm extremely happy with its trade-offs, with the only thing I really miss being generics. Most other things people complain about Go I find refreshing like standardizing on vendoring, static compilation, no "expressive" bs to stroke a programmer's ego while producing potentially harder to read/debug code and so on.
weberc2 10y ago
Go is a general purpose language for rapid application development. It excels at concurrency, and it prioritizes consistency, simplicity, and predictability. Most everything is super straightforward, easy-to-use, easy-to-understand, etc. For example, most Go programs build with `go build` and no configuration files, deployment is just putting a single binary on the target system (no runtime dependencies, not even libc). In particular, Java, Python, and C# have complex build systems and runtimes, and Haskell is not in the same family of languages, so its learning curve is steeper for a lot of people--patterns and paradigms are fundamentally different, so it will take longer to see a return on investment. This doesn't make Go a "better language" in any objective sense, but those who value a no-nonsense, pragmatic language will probably enjoy Go.

by orclev 10y ago

mixedCase 10y ago

> it feels like it makes a set of trade-offs that really benefit nobody You. I'm extremely happy with its trade-offs, with the only thing I really miss being generics. Most other things people complain about Go I find refreshing like standardizing on vendoring, static compilation, no "expressive" bs to stroke a programmer's ego while producing potentially harder to read/debug code and so on.

weberc2 10y ago

Go is a general purpose language for rapid application development. It excels at concurrency, and it prioritizes consistency, simplicity, and predictability. Most everything is super straightforward, easy-to-use, easy-to-understand, etc. For example, most Go programs build with `go build` and no configuration files, deployment is just putting a single binary on the target system (no runtime dependencies, not even libc). In particular, Java, Python, and C# have complex build systems and runtimes, and Haskell is not in the same family of languages, so its learning curve is steeper for a lot of people--patterns and paradigms are fundamentally different, so it will take longer to see a return on investment. This doesn't make Go a "better language" in any objective sense, but those who value a no-nonsense, pragmatic language will probably enjoy Go.